Meg Wartman comments on Elmbrook non-resident enrollment

Or not.

01/23/08 8:51 AM

May I please have a statement from you regarding your intention to support non-resident enrollment in Elmbrook schools? I see that future numbers show no addition to the high school count, but current non-resident enrollment is still high. You have been voting to continue the status quo.

As president of the Elmbrook board, I think it’s fair that everyone know your position on this very important issue.

Thanks,

Cindy Kilkenny

—–Original Message—–
From: Meg Wartman [mailto:wartmanm@elmbrookschools.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:19 PM
To: cindykilkennyxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: non-resident enrollment

I believe my position on non-resident enrollment has been made clear in my past statements and actions at school board meetings.

Meg Wartman

The problem is those meetings disappear, and the minutes only show Wartman: 1) supporting increased non-resident enrollment, 2) supporting additions to the high school facilities plan in order to accommodate “current” enrollment which includes non-residents, and 3) agreeing that the district “may” ask non-residents to reapply prior to high school. There’s no decision to actually implement a reapplication procedure.

Wouldn’t it be easier if she’d just tell us?

Comments

  1. What politician do you know that is willing to be upfront about their positions/votes when they know it is not popular with the voters/taxpayers? It’s a very rare individual that will tell the truth when it’s something we don’t want to hear let alone when there position is contrary to what we want, i.e. lower spending, less taxes, and smaller government. Meg is obviously “speaking” volumes when she dodges a forthright answer, but she’s right…we know she’s not our friend!

  2. Shawn Matson says:

    I know one, but I also know his named isn’t a popular one with this crowd: Feingold.

    He’s always true to his word and stands firm in his views no matter where the political winds are pushing him.

  3. Isn’t THEIR position supposed to be a reflection of the views of constituents? When did these ELECTED representatives become so omniscient that they should be revered for NOT acting on behalf of the public they represent?